3. You forgot the countless attacks on our service men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq.

7. How was Iraq not a terrorist attack itself? Shock and awe?

How many Iraqi innocents were turned into a pink mist that night, with the lie about WMD?
Our bombing of wedding parties in Afghanistan.

We had no business in either place. Those 'attacks' on our service men and women, were/are not terrorist attacks against us, those were people defending their county against foreign invaders, namely us, U.S.

9. Benghazi hearings will be

mainly against Hilliary Clinton because GOPers are very afraid, 2016. As we already know, Issa and his goons will have hearings all the way up to 2016 on anything against Pres O adm. and Dems, for GOPers believe that GAWD has anointed them as savior of America, hallelujah!

12. Not sure this is any different logic than any terrorist would use...

...wouldn't any terrorist consider that their cause as righteous and in the name of protecting something? You have simply inserted your views on what you believe is important, but to the Jihadi in Pakistan, they are protecting something that is just as important to them. That still makes them a terrorist though when they murder others to promote their cause or instill fear.

Bottom line is this: When one blows something up or attacks something or people violently with the goal of instilling fear, which in both the cases of the planned parenthood attacks and Jihadist attacks is true, it is by definition terrorism.

13. Do the Virginia Tech shootings meet the definition of terrorist attack?

15. Probably Not. See Definitions in my Post.

Here are some definitions of terrorism both dictionary and legal. It seems none of the mass shooting qualify as terrorism. They all seem to lack the intent of coercing/intimidation in them. They're more random acts of violence.

On the other hand, it would appear Tim McVeigh's bombing of the Murrow federal building was terrorism because of its political/social agenda. He said in his letters that he bombed the building after Waco and: "I reached the decision to go on the offensive - to put a check on government abuse of power, where others had failed in stopping the federal juggernaut running amok,". That sure seems to fit the most of the definitions of terror listed below. Of course, the Patriot Act didn't exist yet and I believe the government really only had a definition of International Terrorism on the books at the time of McVeigh's bombing. I don't believe they had anything much pertaining to domestic terrorism.

"Borrowing a page from US foreign policy, I decided to send a message to a government that was becoming increasingly hostile, by bombing a government building and the government employees within that building who represent that government." Definitions of terrorism:

Merriam-Websters: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion (terror: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror> )

Dictionary.com: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

The Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms defines terrorism as:

The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

The FBI defines terrorism as:

The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

From Federal Patriot Act:

Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover ""domestic,"" as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.